There are three requirements for divorcing in Australia:

• You are an Australian citizen by birth or descent (one or both parents are Australian) or Australian citizenship was granted to you OR;
• You must consider Australia your home and currently be living in Australia and intend to live in Australia indefinitely, OR;
• You ordinarily live in Australia and have lived in Australia for 12 months immediately before filing for divorce (even if you took short holidays or business trips overseas).

Many people find it more convenient to fill out electronic forms compared to a hard copy. The Australian family law accepts divorce applications that are submitted electronically. Applicants can fill out a form for filing for divorce online and submit it through the electronic portal along with the fee and the necessary accompanying documents.

The online submission process has been made easier to facilitate the applicants. For the most part, the online form has exactly the same questions as the hard copy. However, it is more convenient to fill out due to some special features. One such feature is the validation feature. This feature notifies the applicant if he or she has skipped any question before moving on to the next page. This minimise s the risks of filing an incomplete form.

Secondly, the online form only presents questions that are relevant to the applicant. This saves a lot of time that would otherwise have been spent in going over every question on the form. The online form also provides pointers i.e. information to help the applicant provide complete and accurate responses.

The applicant can easily save the completed divorce application in the form of a PDF file on computer. The applicant can then submit the form electronically through the web portal of the Commonwealth Courts. Some of the necessary document can also be filed electronically. At the same time, the form is also saved automatically on a separate database from where it is automatically deleted after two months.

No separate charges are applied on filing the divorce application electronically. Only the standard prescribed fee for filing an application for divorce needs to be paid by the applicant. All efforts have been taken to make the process of filling out and submitting the online application smooth and hassle-free. However, the family law registry is open to provide a complete divorce kit that answers any particular queries and problems experienced by the applicants.

The divorce kit provides all the information that an applicant needs to file for divorce in Australia. The divorce kit outlines the steps one needs to take to apply for a divorce. It also provides the application form to be filled in by the applicant. There is no standard format of the divorce kit as it is provided in a number of different formats. The applicant can choose the one that best suits their needs after consultation with a divorce lawyer.

The divorce kit also provides an online version of the application form that needs to be printed out after it has been filled in by the applicant and then submitted to the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrates Court Rules provide that the application form be printed on one side of the sheet only. The kit also specifies the fees that the applicant needs to pay at the time they submit the application form with the Federal Magistrates Court. The kit also specifies the instances where the applicant may be entitled to a reduction in the divorce fee. The law allows for the payment to be made in cash as well as via cheques, money orders and credit card.

In addition to the above, the divorce kit also contains information about the process to be followed during court hearings and how the outcome of the application is being determined. Applicants can use the application form to fill in details of up to four children. Applicants who have more than four children can use the special attachment form that comes with the divorce kit. Finally, the online application form can also be submitted electronically through the portal of the Commonwealth Courts. The divorce kit is an indispensable tool for divorce applicants and may be the best source of information on how to get a divorce in Australia.

In Australia, the law allows an application for divorce to be filed only after it becomes clear that the marriage has broken down and there is no chance of reconciliation between the partners. Whether the marriage has broken down to this point or not is being ascertained by the period over which the partners have been separated. Usually this period is of 12 months. The partners may either be separated for a continuous period of twelve months or for periods that amount to 12 months in total. However, in the latter case, it is necessary that any reconciliation should not have lasted for than three months.

The next question to be considered is who can file an application for divorce. Under Australian family law, any one partner or both can file an application for divorce in the Family Court. It is not mandatory for both the partners to want divorce. Either partner may file a divorce application for any marriage that took place within Australia or as long as any one partner is an Australian citizen or is domiciled in Australia. If neither of the above conditions exists, then the partner needs to have been an Australian resident for at least one year to be eligible for filing a divorce application.

Either partner is free to file a divorce application at any time once the separation period of twelve months elapse. Once the application has been filed, it generally takes almost eight weeks for the hearing to begin. It is difficult to estimate how long the proceedings may last before a judgment is reached. However, if no custody of children or divorce property issues are involved, and the partners agree to the divorce, the proceedings are concluded without any unnecessary delays. The decree nisi is issued at the hearing, which is followed by the decree absolute one month later to confirm the divorce.

In Victoria, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, which came into effect in Victoria in 2010, provides greater rights for same-sex couples in the area of surrogacy.  Currently the law in Victoria permits only gestational surrogacy (link to page on surrogacy in Australia) and requires the involvement of two different women for the purpose of surrogacy – the woman who will carry the child and another woman to donate her eggs.  Neither woman may be paid for her services.  The law prohibits any advertising or notification for surrogacy services (to be one or to hire one), but advertising for an egg donor is permitted.  Men who have limited fertility may use a sperm donor.

Becoming the Legal Parents

1.    The Birth Certificate

The surrogate will automatically be listed as the child’s mother on the birth certificate, and her partner (if she has one) as the other parent.  The commissioning parents must turn to the courts for a Substitute Parentage Order  to be legally registered as the child’s parent(s).

2.     Importance of Location

Commissioning parents can apply for a Substitute Parentage Order only if: (1) the child was conceived as a result of a procedure that took place in Victoria AND; (2) the commissioning parents live in Victoria at the time the application for a parentage order is submitted.

3.    Time is of the Essence

Commissioning parents must apply for the Substitute Parentage Order no less than 28 days after the birth and not more than 6 months after the child is born.  The court may make exceptions.

4.    When the Court will give the Order

A court will give a Substitute Parentage Order when ALL of the following requirements have been met or proven to be true:

• Making the order is in the best interests of the child
• A Patient Review Panel approved the arrangement (if a registered ART provider assisted in the process)
• The child was living with the commissioning parents when the application for the order was made
• The surrogate mother and her partner (if she has one) did not receive any material benefit or advantage from the surrogacy arrangement
• The surrogate mother freely consents to the order

How much child support will I owe? Transcript

Hi. I’m Vanessa Mathews from Byron Bay Family Law & Mediation Specialists and I’m going to talk with you today about child support in Australia. While I can give you the basics about child support in Australia, I would stress that you contact a lawyer and get professional legal advice. Every family and every case is different.

Child support is the amount of money the non-custodial parent, meaning the parent the children don’t live with, must pay to the other parent in order to help support the children financially.

You and your partner may come up with your own child support agreement. If you do this, there are a few important pieces of information that your agreement should include. The agreement should say how much money one parent will pay to the other. The agreement should explain what the money is for, for example, generally, monthly payments are for food, clothing and housing.

But what about special expenses like private school fees or orthodontics? A good agreement should include who pays for those unexpected expenses or since you can’t always know what these will be, how you’ll decide who pays. You can agree that when an unexpected expense arises, you’ll go to a mediator, or a third party who knows you both well and let them decide how the new expense will be paid.

You should also include in the agreement how the monthly payments will be paid. Do you want to make a bank transfer? Cash or a check? And it’s also important to state when the payments will be made. At the end of each month, at the beginning of the next month. If you work out these arrangement ahead of time, you can avoid a lot of headaches and fighting.

When deciding what needs to be paid for, you should also think about putting money away for your children for the future. This is especially important because once your child turns 18, the law doesn’t require you to support them anymore. Some parents continue to help out their adult children. While you may want to help them, your ex- partner may not want to and he or she does not have to do so. One way of ensuring that they’re not left out in the cold at that point is to include savings for them in the child support agreement.

I would add that there are different types of agreements you can make, so be sure to read the section on child support on our website at MathewsFamilyLaw.com.au.

Sometimes parents can’t come to an agreement on their own. In this case, the child support melbourne agency will decide how much you need to pay. This is called the Child Support’s fee and it’s a mathematical equation that determines how much a parent must pay. The calculation is based on how much you earn, how many children you have, how much time you spend with them, whether or not you have children from another relationship, and how much you the parent need for yourself.

So, while a parent in one family may need to pay $500 a month for 2 children, another parent in another family may need to pay $1500 a month for 2 children. The Child Support agency’s responsible for assessing the amount a parent has to pay, collecting it, and distributing it to the other parent.

People often ask me what happens if a parent doesn’t pay. The law has a few ways of dealing with these parents. One is to garnish their wages. This means the money they owe for child support is taken directly out of the parent’s salary. Money can also be collected straight from the parent’s bank account. A parent may also be prohibited from traveling overseas for not paying child support and in the extreme cases, go to jail.

Child support can be complicated and every emotional. It’s best to seek out professional legal help to work through various issues and come up with a plan that is fair to everyone, especially the children. Please look at our child support calculator on our website. I’m Vanessa, Mathews from Byron Bay Family Law & Mediation Specialists.

Wilson & Wilson – [2013] FamCAFC 43

This is an appeal on parenting orders granted by the Federal Magistrate Court.  The father appealed orders by the court granting the mother permission to relocate their child from Sydney to Newcastle.  The appeal was accepted and remanded for a rehearing.

The father, aged 57 and the mother, aged 52, had one child together, born in 2001.  The parents bought a home together in Sydney in 2004 and separated in the summer of 2007.  At that time, the mother worked from home as a bookkeeper and the father worked as a contractor for a consultancy company.

Initially, the parents were able to work out parenting arrangements.  From the time they separated, the child lived with the mother and spent time with the father from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning.  When, however, the mother asked the father’s permission to relocate with the child to Newcastle, some 118 kilometers from Sydney, the father refused.  The mother turned to the court for parenting orders and permission to relocate and the father sought orders restricting the mother to the Sydney area.

The mother had several reasons for relocating.  The parents agreed to sell the family home and the mother believed she would not be able to find affordable housing in Sydney.  She also wanted to reduce her work hours in order to spend more time with the child.  Her final reason for requesting relocation was to be closer to good friends in Newcastle since she was isolated in Sydney.  She asked for shared responsibility, that the child live with her and spend every second weekend (Friday afternoon through Sunday) and half the school holidays with the father.  The father asked the court to give them share parental responsibility, that the child live with the mother within a 15 km radius of Sydney and that he have the child three out of four weekends a month for three nights.

The child in question was 11 years old at the time of the divorce, suffered from ADHD which manifested itself in difficulties in school work and making friends.  The child was close to both parents, but had a stronger relationship with his mother.  An expert witness during the initial trial in the Federal Magistrate court stated that the move to Newcastle could potentially harm the child since change was difficult for him.  The expert also said the move would impact negatively on his relationship with his father since the drive to Sydney would be tiring and the child might want to stop making the visits.  Additionally, he would be seeing his father less frequently.

While the Federal Magistrate noted these claims, she considered the mother’s reasons in the equation as well.  She held that in order to provide the child with close to the same standard of living, the mother would, at the very least, need to move to the outskirts of Sydney, further from the father, or she would have to downsize to a small apartment to stay close by.  She would also be required to work her current hours, or longer, in a place where she felt isolated.  The father, on the other hand, was not required to make any changes.  The Federal Magistrate felt that placing the mother in this situation, when she is the primary caregiver for a child with special needs, might result in the child “not receiving the level of parenting he has hitherto enjoyed from his mother”.  The Federal Magistrate ruled in favor of the mother and allowed her to move to Newcastle.

Lower Court did not Weigh Evidence Correctly

The Family Court accepted the father’s claims on appeal, taking into consideration the testimony of the expert witness.  Overall, the court found that the lower court had not given appropriate weight and consideration to the expert witness, who expressed her concerns that the move itself could be damaging to the child.  In particular, the Family Court ruled that the Federal Magistrate was mistaken when she found: (1) the child’s relationship with the father would not be negatively affected by a change in the quantity or nature of the time they spent together; (2) that a move to Newcastle would not negatively impact on the quality of time the father and child spend together; (3) the child was okay with change he was prepared for and; (4) that the best interests of the child were met by the mother having an “unencumbered property with a backyard”.  The court found that the lower court did not appropriately weigh the evidence in considering the best interests of the child.  The case was sent back to the lower court.

Yamada & Cain – [2013] FamCAFC 64

This is a case involving the “best interests of the child”.  The mother appealed orders placing the child in the care of the paternal great aunt.

The child, Z, was born in July 2005 and lived with her paternal great aunt (“the aunt”) from the time she was a baby until she visited her parents in January 2010.  The parents did not return the child after this visit, although it was supposed to last only four weeks.  Both the mother and the father of Z – who have four older children ranging in age from seven to eleven at the time of the trial – had criminal records involving the cultivation and possession of marijuana.  They lived a transient lifestyle, moving around a good deal, and switching schools for their other children.  The most recent move took place in 2010, following the father’s arrest and the family’s desire to be closer to him.  The aunt lived in Melbourne.

After Z was not returned, orders were made by consent in July 2010, according to which Z would live with her parents and spend specified school holidays with the aunt.   In January 2011, the aunt brought Z to the airport to return her to her mother.  There she observed the mother being arrested by Australian Federal Police.  The aunt did not transfer Z and Z continued to live with her.   A trial ensued and the Federal Magistrate ordered that Z live with the aunt and visit the parents during school vacations and maintain phone and electronic contact.   The mother appealed.

Is Parenthood an Overriding Factor?

The mother’s primary claim on appeal was that the Federal Magistrate did not properly balance the importance of parenthood when making a determination of whether a child should live with the parents or a non-parent.   The Family Law Act, 1975 requires the court to consider the child’s best interests when making a parenting order.  The first primary consideration listed in the Act “is the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents.”   The mother argued, based on Donnell & Dovey (2010) FLC 93-428 at [121] that since this relates only to parents, the legal intent was to give parents primacy when considering the best interests of the child.  The mother concluded from this that the Federal Magistrate should have considered Z’s relationship with her parent’s the primary factor and her relationship with her aunt on a lesser level.

The Family Court disagreed, also basing its position on Donnell.  There the court held that in a particular case, maintaining a relationship with a non-parent may be “equally important or more important than the maintenance” of the relationship with the parent.  Further, just because the relationship with the non-parent cannot be a “primary consideration” does not mean that “it will be of any less significance than the benefit to the child of the maintenance of a meaningful relationship with a parent.”  Finally, section 60CC(2)(m) of the Act allows the court to take into consideration ” any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.”

Ultimately, the Family Court held that the law “recognises that it is not parenthood which is crucial to the best interests of the child, but parenting – and the quality of that parenting and the circumstances in which it is given or offered by those who contend for parenting orders.”  The Family Court found that the Federal Magistrate had indeed carefully weighed all of these factors to determine what was in Z’s best interest.  The Federal Magistrate weighed the importance of Z’s relationship with her parents and older siblings against the danger of a transient lifestyle and the instability inherent in such a way of life.

The mother’s appeal was rejected.

Lorreck & Watts – [2012] FMCAfam 977

This appeal was brought before the Family Court in Canberra and raised the question of which parent has to pay for the travel costs for children’s visits to the other parent.

Ms. Lorreck, the mother, and Mr. Watts, the father, had two children.  In June 2012, the court gave orders allowing the mother and the two children to relocate to Cairns from Canberra.  The father remained in Canberra.  The order also included seven trips from Cairns to Canberra in a two year period.  The decision regarding the costs of travel to and from Canberra was remitted to the Federal Magistrates court.

Both the mother and the father submitted their travel expense requests to the Federal Magistrate.  The mother asked that she be required to pay for only one trip per year for the children to visit their father until she could earn $1,300 per week, at which time she would pay for every second trip.  The father asked that the mother pay for every two out of three trips.

The Federal Magistrate ruled that the parents should share the burden of travel expenses equally.  He noted both the mother’s proposal to pay for every second set of airfares and also noted that she had earlier offered to pay half of all of the flights.  The Federal Magistrate recognised that the mother would need time to readjust to her new circumstances before imposing a financial burden on her, but concluded that this did not give her permission to forego her responsibility for the children.

The mother appealed the decision arguing that the Federal Magistrate did not provide adequate reasons for his decision, did not rely on the financial evidence she submitted to the court and disregarded the best interests of the children.  The mother’s income was based solely on child support and social security and after deducting her expenses she was left with $26 per week of disposable income, or $1,352 per year.   The Family Court agreed that the Federal Magistrate did not explain why he rejected the mother’s proposal.   While the Family Court assumed that the Federal Magistrate did this on the basis of the mother’s original offer to pay for half of the travel costs, the Federal Magistrate did not explain his reasons for giving the order on travel expenses.  Therefore, the Family Court found that the appeal should be allowed “on the basis of the challenge to the adequacy of his reasons.”

The Family Court, however, rejected the mother’s claim that the Federal Magistrate’s decision did not take the children’s best interests into consideration.   The mother referred to section 60CC of the Family Law Act, 1975, a list of factors a court uses to determine what the best interests of the children are when granting parenting orders.  While the mother specifically referred to section 60CC(3)(e) of the Act, which allows the court to consider the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with the other parent, she did not raise this issue in the context of her financial burden.   The Family Court did not view it as a valid claim on appeal.

Mother to Pay Three of the Seven Trips

The Family Court ruled that the mother must pay for three out of seven trips over a two year period.  This was the mother’s alternative suggestion if the court chose not to accept her proposal that she begin paying only once she started to earn $1,300 a week.

The Family Court gave several reasons for this decision.  The judge held that the question of best interests as laid out in section 60CC of the Act does not apply to issues of travel costs.  Instead, the court found that it was the mother’s decision to move the children in the first place and therefore “must bear a significant responsibility or obligation to ensure that they are able to spend time with their father”.  In addition, while the father’s income was higher, he was not in a position to pay most of the travel expenses, particularly since he was already paying child support.  The court also found that just as the financial burden on the mother could impact negatively on the children, the mother’s failure to contribute to the travel costs might increase the father’s anger and bitterness and therefore impact negatively on the children as well.  Finally, the court argued that waiting until the mother reached a certain income level was unrealistic because she might never reach that level and because “income levels can be contrived”.   Instead, the court made the mother responsible for three out of seven trips, beginning from a specific date, January 1, 2014.

Field & Basson – [2013] FamCAFC 32

This is an appeal on the division of the property made by the courts between a husband and wife following their divorce.

The wife, aged 47 and the husband, aged 48, were married in 1994 and separated in 2009.  The wife brought assets amounting to $373,471 to the marriage, including five properties, furniture, a car and cash.  The husband brought to the marriage assets amounting to $45,000, including a car, cash and one property plus a superannuation of over $2,000.  Both worked at the time of the marriage and the wife had additional income from her investment properties.

The couple developed a business together and as it grew, the husband resigned from his employment and received his superannuation, which had a gross value of almost $107,000.  The husband and wife both worked in the business and the husband helped maintain and renovate the wife’s properties.  They also took out a loan on the business, and the loans were secured through mortgages on two of the wife’s properties.  The business was not successful and in 2011 the husband found employment elsewhere and only the wife remained working at the business.  In December 2011, the wife suddenly shut down the business.

The Federal Magistrate

The Federal Magistrate gave orders for a property settlement in March 2012.  The judge calculated the assets and liabilities of the couple, including the business, their debts and all of the properties.  The Federal Magistrate took into consideration each partner’s contribution – both financial and nonfinancial – to the asset pool.  He also adjusted the wife’s contributions since she had the greater responsibility for child care and the husband earned more money.   He concluded that the wife should receive 87.5% of the net assets and the husband should receive 12.5% of the assets.

The wife made it clear that she did not want to sell any of the property in order to pay off the debts.  In order to end the joint property relationship, the judge ordered that all of the business stock as well as the jeep should be transferred to the husband, and the wife retains her property and the debt.

Husband appeals – division of property not weighted correctly

The husband claimed on appeal that the judge erred by giving more weight to the wife’s contributions than to the husband’s.   The appeals court began it’s response by explaining that they cannot interfere with the discretion of a lower court judge unless the decision was “plainly wrong”.   It is not enough to say that the appellate court would have come to a different decision in order to overturn the lower court decision.

The appeals court rejected the husband’s first claim on appeal that too much weight was given to the wife’s initial contributions.  The Federal Magistrate clearly stated in his decision that both parties contributed equally but the wife brought in “significantly greater initial contributions”.   The husband never articulated the basis of his claim, other than to bring several other cases, which he then asked the judge to ignore.

The appeals court also rejected the husband’s claim that a weighting of 25% to the wife was incorrect and that more weight should have been given to his non-financial contributions.  The husband provided no information that would demonstrate that the Federal Magistrate, who detailed how he came to his assessment, was “plainly wrong” in the conclusions he reached.   The appeals court cited earlier cases which also translated the “qualitative” contribution of an asset to a “quantitative” number.   The appeals court found that the judge described his reasoning and used his discretion appropriately.

Finally, the appeals court rejected the father’s claim that the Federal Magistrate assumed first that all sides contributed equally and only then made adjustments.  The Federal Magistrate clearly delineated the contributions from each side and the weight of these contributions and only than concluded that they were equal (other than the wife’s significantly greater initial contributions).

Transcript

Hi. I’m Vanessa Mathews from Byron Bay Family Law & Mediation Specialists and I want to discuss family or domestic violence with you today.

If you’re in a violent or abusive situation within your home, please spend a few minutes listening to this video to learn more about your rights and what you can do and remember that you’re not alone. There are many agencies that provide services to families suffering from family violence. See our website at MathewsFamilyLaw.com.au under the tab “violence” to find out which agencies can help you.

The first thing you need to know is what exactly is family violence. According to the law, family violence or abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and even financial.

Restraining law protects spouses, children, relatives, and even other individuals living in the house where there is family violence.

What can you do about violence? Australia has something called an AVO. Sometimes this is also called an intervention order, a protection order, or an apprehended violence order. The aim is to protect those in danger or to prevent the violent or abusive person from continuing their abuse.

You need to go to the courts to apply for an AVO and the court will have to consider all of the circumstances but the court’s main concern is the well-being and safety of the person being hurt or abused.

Another important question is who is covered by this order or who is the family member? Because in order to get an AVO you have to show that there is a relationship. There are 5 types of relationships covered by the law. One is people who share an intimate relationship, like a marriage, or a de facto couple, essentially a spouse or partner. The second is parents and children, so if there is abuse by a parent or child, the other can request an AVO. The third group is other relatives and this includes people related by birth, or adoption, or marriage. The fourth group is people who are like family members, such as guardians or caregivers. The fifth group is people who used to be family members, for example, an ex-spouse.

When you go to get an AVO, you’ll fill out an application either at the magistrates court if you’re over 18 or at the children’s court if you’re 14 to 18 years old or if you’re an adult applying for an order for a child. The application asks a lot of questions about the sides. The person asking for the order is called the protected person and the person who the order is against is called the respondent.

When you apply for an AVO, you also have to detail what you want the restraining order to do and this can be any number of things. It can prevent the respondent from harming people or property or from approaching or coming near certain people. It can prevent the respondent from putting up information on the internet about the protected person. You have to detail what you want the order to protect.

Once you file an application for an AVO, there will be a hearing at court. The respondent has a chance to answer the request for protection. The respondent might agree to the request and the judge or registrar will give the AVO. The respondent might ask for what’s called an undertaking which means he or she makes a promise to the protected person and the judge that the respondent will do or not do certain things. If the applicant agrees, the application for the AVO is withdrawn and instead there is an undertaking.

But you can refile for an AVO if the respondent doesn’t follow the conditions of the undertaking or promise. If the respondent contests or fights the application, then another date for a hearing will be set and it’s almost like a trial where the court hears evidence from both sides. If the respondent just doesn’t show up to the first hearing, the court will listen to the applicant and the reasons for making the request and then decide whether or not to give an AVO.

You can read more about family violence on our website or contact me. Do what you need to do to protect yourself or your family and contact somebody who can help you. I’m Vanessa Mathews from Byron Bay Family Law & Mediation Specialists.